Monarchies of the World

what about wakanda?

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Waka waka

Missed Lesotho and Tonga... I was sure Nepal was a monarchy though...

In a most dramatic way, starting with crown Prince gunning down most of the royal family ...

This quiz inspired me to revisit the abolition of the Nepalese monarchy, which I remember, and read about the royal massacre of 2001, about which I had absolutely no idea. The story is nuts.

Wow i was alive when Nepal had a monarchy?

Aww I'm stupid I missed Thailand...

But i'm suprised that Tonga is monarchy! lol

I happened to miss the UK, two days after the Queen's death :/

big L

So there's only 29 monarchies out of 196 (I think) countries? I guess that shows how stupid it is. (No offence, I live in one of them myself.)

Depends on what your monarchies does. Ceremonial monarchies aren't too bad at all tbh

They're good for tourism, I suppose.

Interesting debate here. I think there are good arguments for a ceremonial monarch, but I don't really buy the idea that they are good for tourism. People aren't going to say "I think I'll visit the UK for my holiday because it is a monarchy". We have castles and palaces that result from the monarchy and are tourist attractions, but would abolition of the monarchy really make them less valuable? Probably not. While it would be pretty ridiculous for a country like France or the USA to start a monarchy now, I do however think that if a head of state is introduced who is directly elected democratically, they will have a mandate to run the country however they want (something Queen Elizabeth II does not have and has never thought she had). And a ruler should have to put their decisions before a parliament in the knowledge that it is the parliament, not them, who holds sovereignty. We could make the Prime Minister head of state, but the formalities involved would likely distract them even

further from running the country. Another alternative is to have no head of state like Switzerland, but if the monarchy were abolished I don't think that would happen. People calling monarchy a waste of money should remember that whatever might replace it would quite possibly cost just as much, or more.

@Nathaniel It's weird, Switzerland doesn't actually have a singular head of state - the Federal Council is collectively head of state. I don't know whether any other country has that kind of system..? Der Guy is head of the Federal Council, but that doesn't make him officially head of state.

And yet monarchies make up nearly half of the top countries in the world (those with high income, life expectancy, low crime, low disease rate etc.)

Where as the worst countries of the world are all not monarchies.

Japan, U.K, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Holland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Luxembourgh. You can also through in New Zealand, Australia, Canada as monarchies as well.

Only absolute monarchies are usually bad countries and even then some of them are better than some of the surronding nations, like Thailand and Bhutan.

Even if one rates personal freedoms higher than they do income rates, crime rates some absolute Monarchies still rank higher than nearby republics, Like Kuwait, Oman, Qatar.

In europe many monarchs are held in higher esteem than thier politicians and usually poor huge sums of money into global charity projects. Some like Diana were loved even by non monarchies

Good question, these aren these all the monarchies in the world? Also, it would be interesting to make a difference between symbolic monarchies and absolute monarchies.

Interesting quiz. :) But technically the Vatican city is a theocracy, not a monarchy, just like Iran. :/

Yes, true. If we're not going to trifle about actual titles, then many dictatorships around the world function just like monarchies with absolute monarchs and hereditary rule. North Korea, for instance, is closer to being a monarchy in practice than Great Britain. The only thing that makes many of these countries monarchies is that they have some twat living in a castle who calls himself king. But the twat at the Vatican calls himself Pope and claims to speak directly to God, rather than simply getting his authority from Him. So, there's a difference.

Well yeah. But the position of pope is not hereditary, which sets it apart from the other monarchies.

... except Andorra.

Didn't know Pope speaks directly to god. Sounds interesting

That description fits more presidents than monarchs. When you look at the Palace of the Elysée...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_palace

Pope has changed.

You should change the leader in Vatican. There's now a new Pope

Ah... the countries in the world where it's still mandated by law to worship some inbred rich family. Keeping Up With the Kardashians may be a bit of a cultural embarrassment but at least it's not written in to the constitution that we have to keep it on the air. I guess that's progress?

Been a few months since I last took this quiz. Somehow managed to miss the Vatican despite the conversation we were having last time about the appropriateness of its inclusion on the list. Guess I should have remembered it was on here even if that's a bit odd. Only other ones I missed were Japan and the two land-locked South African countries.

What are you talking about? They're there just for symbollic reasons. They have little to no influence in the government whatsoever. At least in Europe that is. Keeping Up With the Kardashians is made for entertainment. Why would you feel embarassed by a TV show? It's not a representation of a whole country, just of a stupid family (which is kinda foreign BTW).

Inbred? There are several members of the royal families in Europe who have married people outside them. Honestly, I'm not a supporter of monarchy, but if the people like it, then that's totally OK with me.

If you spent 3 weeks drinking your own urine and then yesterday had a clean glass of orange juice you're still not going to have a healthy set of kidneys.

Challenge accepted, kal.

There are people who drink their own urine, including an Indian Prime Minister. Not saying that it's a good idea, just saying that we maybe should be less mean to urine drinkers. It's less idiotic than monarchy at any rate.

How could I forget Brunei and Bhutan.

That is an absolute disgrace.

The title of the ruler of the Vatican is the king, but they are awarded to the same person. The title should be king.

So the Pope is also the king of Vatican City? hm.. to Wikipedia!...

there's a CGPGrey video on YouTube about it

Belgium should be updated, King Albert abdicated in July 2013. King Phillipe is the monarch now.

Should the Ayatollah be on here for Iran?

Russians in Afghanistan!

It would be nice to remove the word "still" from the title of the quiz, as it implies a lot of things including a personal opinion.

Like the new look, QM!

I like most things updated with the new look, but why add a "Start quiz" button?

I LIKE the "Start quiz" button very much!

What's the point of the button, I'd like to know.

I can't speak for anyone else but I like having an opportunity to read the instructions without losing valuable time on the clock. Wasted seconds are points lost!

But it also gives time to think about (or even look up) the answers before starting the quiz which is not a good thing IMO.

@ander but why would you even take the quiz then (if you, not you but you know ;), are gonna look up the answer anyway... no point then. You might aswell just read an encyclopedia

Then it's their loss.

Looking at this list now, the most amazing thing to me is the surprising lack of monarchies left in Africa. Just Morocco and the tiny kingdoms of Lesotho, Swaziland and Tonga.

Tonga is in Oceania. That reduces the number of monarchies in Africa to 3. I'm not surprised though, because most African countries are relatively new, being formed after 1950 for the first time.

There are many subnational monarchies in Africa.

When you look at the different presidents in Africa, I don't think we can really say that republicanism has been noticeably better than monarchy would have been.

LIving down under is good. We are a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as Sovereign. She has a "substitute" of sorts, they being the Governor-General.

The Queen's Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

Taken from: http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/australia/australia.aspx

Style? Is that something like a tag? Haha

As soon as I realized that a lot of these countries were tiny, I was on a roll.

All I did was guess...still got Swaziland, Lesotho and Lichtenstein

LOL François, co-prince of Andorra XD

Emmanuel now :)

What about Samoa?

Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi is their constitutional monarch...

No, he was duly elected. He's aparently head of a "royal" family (quote marks according to Wikipedia), but it has not much to do with his political function.

But the King of Malaysia is also elected... that doesn't in itself mean he's not a monarch.

King Bhumibol has died. May he rest in peace.

Neat quiz! You clearly did a lot of research. I pretty much just guessed the countries.

Wait, Nigeria's not a monarchy? Then why do I keep getting e-mails from a Nigerian prince that wants to give me lots of money?

There are plenty of princes in abolished monarchies (Serbia, Greece, Germany, ...)

Sure, but why don't I get any e-mails from any of those places?

They aren't as generous as their Nigerian counterparts.

i wanna get sent money bye a nigerian prince

I made a quiz on restored monarchies that you might want to check out.

http://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/120795/restored-monarchies

No need to type all the countries in the world ;) plus if you dont know some that is fine. It is not about scoring 100% in whichever way possible but testing your knowledge.

the time seems fine to me, you do the ones you know and have a bit ov time left for some educated guesses. Not a typing contest without time to think and not so long that hou can just randomly put loads of countries in without rhyme or reason.

Funny that Prince Emmanuel of Andorra is actually Emmanuel Macron, the French President.

Ugh, I was typing... Liechtenstein, Andorra, Luxembourg, and then I decided, "Vatican City? Nah, he is the pope, not a king!" Completely missed.

Abolished.

An interesting observation I posted above (it was deleted because the user who started the thread was deleted): Of the 17 countries listed as full democracies by the democracy index at the time, 9 were monarchies. This number has since changed to 10/20.

Malaysia’s monarch has changed from Muhammad to Abdullah since January 31 this year.

If you enjoyed this quiz, check out this "Constitutional Monarchies" quiz. Similar, but not at all the same!

Many comments touting that the strongest and most successful governments still have constitutional monarchs. I am wondering whether that is any causal relationship though. I suspect it's just a coincidence. Western Europe has the most successful democracies, and also has a history of monarchies, but I don't think the former is really the result of the latter. The US's current quandary is the result of a culture that is rotting from the inside, owing mostly to greed and bigotry. I don't see how that has anything to do with not having a monarch. I'm sure some grad student has written an interesting paper on the subject. To the internet!

I think it is because the strongest and most successful governments are generally the oldest ones (i.e. countries where it is difficult to bring down the government haven't had the government brought down in a while). Monarchy is an older form of government than a modern democratic republic, so the most stable governments tend to be disproportionately likely to be constitutional monarchies.

The USA has the oldest still-in-use written constitution in the world and has had a remarkably stable and long-continuous government, more than many other countries that most people think of as older which in fact have undergone multiple revolutions, coups, or reorganizations in recent history and so shouldn't really be thought of as old. Great Britain managed to stay out of the revolutions that swept across Europe in the 1800s but that makes them more the exception than the rule.

You're right I suppose, though the USA can also be said to be an exception to the rule rather than the rule because of how early it became independent and how rich it was destined to be because of its huge amount of natural resources. Also the fact that its native population was small enough compared to its immigrant population that the native population could be oppressed effectively, ensuring that they couldn't overthrow the government. Perhaps it is more to do with the fact that something needs to be going badly wrong internally in a country to persuade sufficiently many people to take part in a revolution. The Netherlands and Belgium were occupied by the Nazis in the Second World War, for example, but the population had no reason to start a revolution after the Nazis were gone and what was seen as the original government was restored.

Back in the 80s, when my dad was a medical student, the Bangladeshi government paid millions of dollars to the British government to get the broadcasting rights to some sort of royal wedding (Charles and Diana I think). My dad wrote a very critical editorial about the uselessness of it. This was at a time when most of Bangladesh was living in the most extreme of poverty, where famines were still common and barely anyone had access to electricity, let alone televisions. Why, he argued, was the government spending so much money on an ultimately worthless event that very few Bangladeshis could watch when it could spend that money helping the poor?

Thankfully things are better in Bangladesh now, but I still think he had a good point--why do people spend so much money and attention on people who are ultimately unimportant to our lives when we could focus our time and attention on the things that matter?

The Norwegians were in fact pretty big into looting and pillaging in the 9th and 10th centuries. But, yeah, good point aside.

You're praising your own point?

I hate it when find out after finishing a quiz that the answers were in alphabetical order all along.

I had no idea Cambodia was a monarchy

Akihito's reign as Emperor ended after his abdication. Naruhito became Emperor since 1 May 2019, the beginning of the Reiwa era

Yes

Missed Morocco, Bhutan, Malaysia and Lesotho

100%

Unless you mean Sabah for Kuwait as the last name, please update. King Sabah al-Sabah of Kuwait died this year (2020). The Emir of Kuwait is now Nawaf al-Sabah

easy because I know all monarchies, I even have a series about it.

How is the Vatican a monarchy? The pope is elected.

Hail to Multiple VII King of the UAE !

The monarch of the vatican holds the title "sovereign". The title "pope" is the title of the monarch of the holy see, a similar but different entity

This is the interesting fact i got:

In 2012, Liechtensteiners voted on whether to abolish the Prince’s right to…..

... veto referendum results.

Is that really interesting? I slightly regret bothering to look it up to be honest; I thought it was going to be something like "... take any female over the age of 12 as a wife."

The interesting part is their outcome. If they don't abolish it, they're running a risk of a corrupt leader. If they do, they're getting rid of the risk for no cost.

It's a stable, moneytheistic autonomous bankocracy - they won't do anything interesting that puts that in danger.

24

bolivia?

I recognize that this isn’t within the time frame of the most recent update, however, for the next update I believe Afghanistan should be included under Emir Hibatullah Akhundzada (at least if Wikipedia is anything to go by)

arnt australia and canada and many more not also monarchies since the queen of the uk is also their queen nvm i see the caviat now

rip queen elizabeth